More on copy-protected music CDs.

Useful round-up article in today’s New York Times. The story, however, underplayed the computer industry’s hostility to the demands of the copyright thugs. Basically, they are demanding that Congress legislates to ensure that every computing device sold conforms to their requirements — that, in effect, we should have to get a government licence to own a general purpose PC — just as you have to get a licence to own a gun in the UK. The Intel rep (the only tech spokesman available, it seems) pointed out mildly that this would, er, slow down innovation in the computing industry. What he ought to have pointed out to the somnolent legislators is that the computing and technology industries are orders of magnitude more important to the US economy than the recording industry. So legislators will have to decide where their priorities lie — crippling a huge strategic industry in order to feather-bed a smaller one.

Footnote: according to figures published by Salon, the computing industry dwarfs Hollywood in size — US domestic spending on technology goods and services totaled $600 billion in 2000, according to government figures, while Hollywood receipts equaled $35 billion.

Blogging Here to Stay, says Dan Gillmor.

In this piece , Dan Gillmor argues that Andrew Sullivan got it right — while castigating him for writing a piece without links to other people’s sites. (Dave Winer sees this as typical professional-journo behaviour.) But the best part of Dan’s essay is this:

“My guiding principles in journalism are the usual ones. I believe in getting it right, being fair, shining lights on things that are hidden when they affect the public good, etc. But I have developed another guiding principle in the way I do this craft.

My readers know more than I do. And if we can all take advantage of that, in the best sense of the expression, we will all be better informed.”

Peer-to-Peer Knowledge.

What an interesting idea. “Works just like Peer-to-Peer music services, but we don’t share music; we help people share knowledge, connect to each other and find things and information. P2PQ is a dynamic directory of live people, available to you from anywhere and any device. “

In technical terms, it’s a client server system for farming out questions to people via a modified instant messaging system, returning the aggregated answers to a single webpage or device. No Mac client available yet, though. :-(

Andrew Sullivan really gets it. This man understands the significance of the Blogging phenomenon. “Blogger even provides a handy, idiot-proof rubric for a simple site. And all this is provided for free. It was, I realized two years ago, the nascent Napster of the journalism industry. Just as Napster by-passed the record companies and brought music to people with barely any mediation, so Blogger by-passed established magazines, newspapers, editors and proprietors, and allowed direct peer-to-peer journalism to flourish.”

This is a VERY perceptive piece. At one point he says:
“Peer-to-peer journalism, I realized, had a huge advantage over old-style journalism. It could marshall the knowledge and resources of thousands, rather than the certitudes of the few.”

What to do if anyone ever tries to fire you: demand to see all company e-mails relating to you.

According to this interesting Financial Times article, the tendency to commit things to e-mail that people would never dream of writing on paper appears unaffected by knowledge of the legal – not to mention reputational – trap it sets for the employer.

Charles Russell, the law firm, paid an estimated £10,000 compensation to a black secretary last month after she accidentally caught sight of an e-mail sent between two lawyers concerning her replacement.

“Can we go for a real fit busty blonde this time?” wrote Adam Dowdney. “She can’t be any more trouble and at least it would provide some entertainment!”

A shame faced Mr Dowdney later apologised for the message as being a “senseless and thoughtless joke”.

“It’s common on e-mail to find a forthright discussion about someone’s performance or about possibly making them redundant,” says Tim Russell, head of the employment group at Norton Rose, the law firm. “If I’m acting for someone, I always seek pre-determinative e-mails for proof that they’ve been stitched up.”

How to tell if a ‘cease and desist’ letter from a lawyer trying to close your Website down is serious…

Click on Chilling Effects, and you will find all kinds of useful information about your legal rights and entitlements posted by law students from Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley. According to this New York Times piece, the site invites Internet users to submit the notices they have received, all of which will be annotated by the students. As the database grows, the site’s operators plan to publish a regular update that they hope will help document for legislators and others how intellectual property holders are using or abusing their rights.

What a great use of the Web!

According to this article by James Cowan, there are now upwards of half a million Weblogs out there.

Judge who did for Napster now rounds on the recording companies
Wired story.

‘Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who called both sides “dirty,” said that Napster’s misguided attempts to build a business using illegally obtained music paled in comparison to what could be massive misuse and heavy-handed tactics by the recording industry.

If the labels can’t prove ownership of the copyrights, they can’t ask the courts for damages for copyright infringement. That may not mean Napster is in the clear. It depends on how the court rules on ownership of songs. For instance, if the artists retain ownership it would be up to those artists to make a deal with, or sue, companies like Napster. ‘

According to this CNET account, Judge Patel observed that:
‘The evidence now shows that the plaintiffs have licensed their catalogues of works for digital distribution in what could be an overreaching manner. The evidence also suggests the plaintiffs’ entry into the digital distribution marketplace may run afoul of antitrust laws.’

The big news of the week is that the US Supreme Court has decided to reconsider whether the Congress’s persistent extension of copyright terms is unconstitutional. Lots of intelligent comment and reporting on this — from Dan Gillmor, The New Yorker and The New York Times. There’s also a useful American Lawyer article on the case.

The Berkman Center at Harvard has played an important role in challenging the hegemony of copyright owners. Here is the text of the newspetter they put out following the Court’s announcement:

“The US Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certiorari in Eldred v. Ashcroft, a case challenging the constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). At issue in the case is whether there are constitutional limits to Congress’s power to extend the term of copyright.

Since 1960, Congress has extended the term of copyright no fewer than 11 times. The CTEA extended the term of copyright by another 20 years, to 95 years; it also extended the lengths of protection for the works of individuals from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years, and extended the protection for works made by corporations to a total of 95 years.

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case means that at least four members believe the CTEA raises important constitutional questions. A date for oral arguments has not yet been set.

Among those fighting the CTEA on behalf of Eric Eldred are Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, Berkman Center Director Charles Nesson, and Berkman Center Faculty Co-Director Jonathan Zittrain.”

Here’s a complete archive of arguments made and briefs filed,

Pot calls kettle black department.
Official music download sites don’t pay artists either.

When the recording companies were attacking Napster, they attempted to seize the high moral ground by claiming that Napster was unfair not just to the bonuses of corporate suits, but also to the poor musicians whose work was being pirated by file-sharers. But guess what? According to the The New York Times, the download sites set up by the recording industry don’t pay the musicians either. Well, well, well…